DOCSLIB.ORG

Population Status of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Population Status of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris U ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Population status of the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) in Madison County, Illinois: Results of 2001 surveys IDOT CONTRACT 1-5-90179 FINAL REPORT ON 2001 RESULTS John K. Tucker Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey Great Rivers Field Station 8450 Montclaire Avenue Brighton, Illinois 62012 January 2002 I J. K. Tucker Principal Investigator Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey DISCLAIMER The findings, conclusions, and views expressed herein are those of the researchers and should not be considered as the official position of the Illinois Department of Transportation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT This research (contract number 1-5-90179) was funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A study of the biology of the Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, is reported. Surveys of Madison County for choruses of the frogs located nine choruses in 2001. Eight of these choruses were located at the same sites that choruses were found in 2000. One new site was found where frogs were calling in 2001. The bulk of the study was conducted using drift fences at the wetland mitigation area adjacent to Sand Road in Sec. 19, T4N, R8W. The primary purpose of the 2001 study was to examine spatial variation in use of the mitigation area by the Illinois chorus frog and to estimate population size and density at the mitigation area. I estimated population size using recaptures of frogs previously marked. Lincoln-Petersen index estimate of population size based on recaptures of previously marked frogs was about 70 frogs for both sexes. This estimate is about one- sixth of the 1999 estimate possibly due to unfavorable recruitment in 2000. The apparent reduction in frog numbers was not due to activities associated with wetland restoration. However, had the wetland project not been completed the frog populations may have been even more adversely impacted by the drying of the wetland area. I found the first evidence of surface activity among adult frogs outside of the breeding season. A single frog was collected in September of 1998 suggesting that monitoring of drift fences year-round is important. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Title and Signature page DISCLAIMER ............................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT.............. ..... ,....,.. S..ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................... .,........... .iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... ........... °,, S.iv LIST OF TABLES.......................... ............. ° S... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................ ..........,•, ..vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................ ... •.......... vii INTRODUCTION............................ CHORUS LOCATIONS IN THE SAND ROAD STUDY AREA ........ ...2 Materials and Methods ................ ........•o.•... ..2 Results and Discussion................ ..........°•., . .2 POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATES............... ............. , .. 4 Materials and Methods ................ •............. ..4 Results and Discussion................ ......... ,.... SUMMARY ................................ .......... ,... .6 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................... 7 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: All Illinois chorus frogs collected between 1996 and 2001.....5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Sand Road study area showing the location of the wetland mitigation area and known choruses of the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis)...................................... .3 vi Figure 1 Scale = 0.8 km North Levee road Rose historical site -1 Wanda Rd trailer park 1 Old Poag Road krea enlarged (10CU Streetcar Road CO, Sand prairie chorus (U) below SandRoad - I Hartzell Rd Greenhouse p-- Sand Road > ! _i ______ Chain of Rocks Road ------------------------------ North t =Chorus Sand Streetcar Road Road Morris historical site Trailer park Brockmeier chorus Site colonized Greenhous e in 2001 Greenh. < -Hartzell Rd Mitigation area -!j Sand Idle Acres chorus Road Scale = 0.8 km ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank G. B. Rose, M. M. Tucker, and D. Warner for field assistance. L. E. Brown provided many useful suggestions concerning the biology of the frog and helped with literature needs. G. E. Kruse provided permits necessary for this project. vii INTRODUCTION The Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, is restricted to the floodplains of the Mississippi and Illinois rivers in Arkansas, Illinois, and Missouri (Conant and Collins, 1991). The frog is listed as a threatened species in Illinois (Herkert, 1992), as a rare species in Missouri (Anonymous, 1992), as a species of special concern in Arkansas (R. Roberg, pers. comm.), and as federal C-2 species (Dodd et al., 1985). This highly fossorial frog occurs in Illinois mainly along the central part of the Illinois River (Smith, 1951, 1961, 1966; Morris and Smith, 1981; Taubert et al., 1982; Brown and Rose, 1988; Morris, 1990; Beltz, 1991 and 1993). Other populations are, also, scattered along the Mississippi River from Madison to Alexander Counties, Illinois (Holman et al., 1964; Brown and Brown, 1973; Axtell and Haskell, 1977; Morris and Smith, 1981; Taubert et al., 1982; Gilbert, 1986; Brown and Rose, 1988; Morris, 1990; Beltz, 1991 and 1993; Tucker and Philipp, 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996). Several previous publications and unpublished reports provide details on the life history of P. s. illinoensis including information on underground feeding behavior (Brown, 1978), burrowing behavior (Axtell and Haskell, 1977; Brown et al., 1972; Tucker et al., 1995; Tucker, 1995), chorus sites (Brown and Rose, 1988; Tucker, 1998), fecundity (Butterfield et al., 1989; Tucker and Philipp, 1995; Tucker, 1997a), post-metamorphic growth (Tucker, 1995; Tucker and Philipp, 1995), morphology of newly transformed froglets (Tucker, 1997b); food habits (Tucker, 1997c), thermobiology (Packard et al.. 1998), and morphological adaptations to fossorial existence (Brown and Means, 1984; Paukstis and Brown, 1987 and 1991). The present report is a summary of results for 2001 and a continuation of studies initiated in 1993. This year's activities carried forward objectives from previous years and include an analysis of the impact of the wetland mitigation area. My objectives were: 1. Monitor the distribution of P. s. illinoensis choruses in appropriate habitat in the impact area. 2. Estimate the approximate number of P. s. illinoensis located on the wetland mitigation area. CHORUS LOCATIONS IN THE SAND ROAD STUDY AREA MATERIALS AND METHODS Monitoring of chorus locations in the Sand Road study area (Fig. 1) began on February 16, 2001. The methods used and sites visited were reviewed in previous reports (i.e., Tucker and Philipp, 1996). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In 2001, a total of nine choruses were located (Fig. 1). Eight of these locations were sites of choruses in previous years. One new chorus site was found in 2001 (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Sand Road study area showing the location of the wetland mitigation area and known choruses of the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) in Madison County, Illinois. Figure 1 Scale = 0.8 km North Levee road • ee\ Rose historical site ,A SWanda Rd trailer park -ci Old Poag Road Area enlarge e d ct~ Sand praiirie chorus I Streetcar Road (I) _ _ _ __ below SandRoad --- <- .----- Hartzell Rd Greenhouse Sand Road I / I I Chain of Rocks Road' North = Chorus Sand Streetcar Road Road Morris historical site ,A. Trailer park - - Brockmeier chorus Site colonized -i __Genu in 2001 Greenhouse '-Hartzell Rd Mitigation area Sand Idle Acres chorus Road AD Scale = 0.8 km Generally, chorus sites have been stable in the general study area from 1994-2000 with no indication of recolonization of distant sites where this species is thought to have been extirpated (Tucker and Philipp, 1995; Tucker, 1998). This year's results marked a departure from previous years results with the discovery of a new chorus site. This site occupies a borrow pit created in 1997-1998. The borrow pit is located just south of Streetcar Road and just north of the wetland mitigation site. Likely frogs that colonized this site came from the wetland mitigation area. POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATES MATERIALS AND METHODS Population size estimate was made using the Petersen method as modified by Bailey (1951) for estimates of population size when number of recaptures were small (Donnelly and Guyer, 1994). Standard error of was not calculated due to the small number of captures in 2000 and 2001. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Petersen estimate of population size was 70 total frogs based on recaptures of previously marked frogs (Table 1). The 2001 estimate was only one-sixth of the estimate made in 1997 of about 455 adults (the highest population recorded). Apparently, unfavorable rainfall in the summer and fall of 2000 reduced recruitment in this species. This conclusion is supported by the few captures made in 2000 and 2001 compared to previous years (Table 1). Nonetheless, the number of frogs cought in 2001 was 6 times higher than the few frogs caught in 2000. This suggests that recruitment from year to year is important in maintaining populations sizes (Tucker, 1995; 1998). Table 1. Number of Illinois chorus frogs caught from 1996 to 2001. Total number Year of frogs males females 1996 60 31 29 1997 86 47 39 1998 22 13 9 1999 151 78 73 2000 2 0 2 2001 12 5 7
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Population Status of the Illinois Chorus Frog
    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Population status of the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) in Madison County, Illinois: Results of 1994 surveys IDOT CONTRACT 1-5-90179 FINAL REPORT ON 1994 RESULTS John K. Tucker Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey 4134 Alby Street Alton, Illinois 62002 and David P. Philipp Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey 607 E. Peabody Champaign, Illinois 61781 December 1995 J. K. Tucker Dr. David P. Philipp Co-Principal Investigator Co-Principal Investigator Center for Aquatic Ecology Center for Aquatic Ecology Illinois Natural History Survey Illinois Natural History Survey DISCLAIMER The findings, conclusions, and views expressed herein are those of the researchers and should not be considered as the official position of the Illinois Department of Transportation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT This research (contract number 1-5-90179) was funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A study of the biology of the Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, is reported. Surveys of Madison County for choruses of the frogs located seven choruses. Choruses previously reported at Granite City and South Roxana were not relocated and are thought to be extirpated. We estimated population size to be 420 frogs in April 1994 with a juvenile survivorship of 4.5%. Mean distance for 20 recaptured frogs from point of initial capture was 0.52 km with a range of 0 to 0.9 km. Habitat preference for 48 frogs found on roads appeared to be for old field habitats in preference to areas of agriculture or lawns.
    [Show full text]
  • Calling Site Characteristics of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis) in Northeastern Arkansas
    Herpetological Natural History, 9(2), 2006, pages 195–198. 195 ©2006 by La Sierra University CALLING SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ILLINOIS CHORUS FROG (PSEUDACRIS STRECKERI ILLINOENSIS) IN NORTHEASTERN ARKANSAS Malcolm L. McCallum1,2 Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program, Arkansas State University, PO Box 847, State University, Arkansas 72467, USA Stanley E. Trauth, Charles McDowell, Robert G. Neal, and Tracey L. Klotz Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, PO Box 599, State University, Arkansas 72467, USA Proper management of wildlife populations We here characterize the calling perch selection by requires an in-depth knowledge of habitat require- male P. s. illinoensis as applied to the conservation ments for each species (Anderson 1985). and management of this subspecies. Microhabitat use has been largely uninvestigated in amphibians and reptiles. Without knowing how MATERIALS AND METHODS species utilize the unique matrices of microhabitats within a general habitat, a species numbers could We visited breeding choruses of P. s. illinoen- easily decline for seemingly unknown reasons. This sis located in Clay County, Arkansas on 18, 28 may be especially true if the microhabitat structure February and 4 March 2000; 13, 15, 24 February is involved in reproduction. 2001; 14, 19, 23 February and 1, 8, 15 March 2002. Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis is a highly fos- We counted calling males at selected ponds, and sorial (Brown 1978; Brown et al. 1972) hylid frog recorded abnormalities as observed. We noted endemic to sand areas from extreme northeastern amplectant and calling behaviors in 2001. Arkansas and southeastern Missouri to the Mississippi and Illinois rivers in central and south- Calling Sites ern Illinois (Smith 1966).
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet
    TOADSMissouri’s andFROGS by Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, Herpetologists www.MissouriConservation.org © 1982, 2008 Missouri Conservation Commission Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Missouri Department of Conservation is available to all individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Questions should be directed to the Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102, (573) 751-4115 (voice) or 800-735-2966 (TTY), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP-4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Cover photo: Eastern gray treefrog by Tom R. Johnson issouri toads and frogs are colorful, harmless, vocal and valuable. Our forests, prairies, rivers, swamps and marshes are Mhome to a multitude of toads and frogs, but few people know how many varieties we have, how to tell them apart, or much about their natural history. Studying these animals and sharing their stories with fellow Missourians is one of the most pleasurable and rewarding aspects of our work. Toads and frogs are amphibians—a class Like most of vertebrate animals that also includes amphibians, salamanders and the tropical caecilians, which are long, slender, wormlike and legless. frogs and Missouri has 26 species and subspecies (or toads have geographic races) of toads and frogs. Toads and frogs differ from salamanders by having an aquatic relatively short bodies and lacking tails at adulthood. Being an amphibian means that tadpole stage they live two lives: an aquatic larval or tadpole and a semi- stage and a semi-aquatic or terrestrial adult stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Biobasics Contents
    Illinois Biodiversity Basics a biodiversity education program of Illinois Department of Natural Resources Chicago Wilderness World Wildlife Fund Adapted from Biodiversity Basics, © 1999, a publication of World Wildlife Fund’s Windows on the Wild biodiversity education program. For more information see <www.worldwildlife.org/windows>. Table of Contents About Illinois Biodiversity Basics ................................................................................................................. 2 Biodiversity Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 Biodiversity of Illinois CD-ROM series ........................................................................................................ 6 Activities Section 1: What is Biodiversity? ...................................................................................................... 7 Activity 1-1: What’s Your Biodiversity IQ?.................................................................... 8 Activity 1-2: Sizing Up Species .................................................................................... 19 Activity 1-3: Backyard BioBlitz.................................................................................... 31 Activity 1-4: The Gene Scene ....................................................................................... 43 Section 2: Why is Biodiversity Important? .................................................................................... 61 Activity
    [Show full text]
  • Annex13 Idnrresponsetoecocat
    Annex13_IDNRResponsetoEcocat May 29, 2019 William Blessman County Administrator 125 N Plum Havana, IL 62644 RE: Glacier Sands Wind Project Project Number(s): 1901976 County: Mason Dear Mr. Blessman, This letter addresses consultation on the development of a wind energy generation facility pursuant to the requirements of the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 ILCS 30/17], the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS 10/11], and Title 17 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1075. Additionally, the Department may offer advice and recommendations for species covered under the Fish & Aquatic Life Code [515 ILCS 5, et seq.]; the Illinois Wildlife Code [520 ILCS 5, et seq.]; and the Herptiles-Herps Act [510 ILCS 69]. The proposed action being reviewed in this letter consists of development of the Glacier Sands wind farm in Mason County by Swift Current Energy. The project is generally located in the east-central area of Mason County. The purpose of this review is to provide advisory recommendations which the County has the discretion to adopt, modify, or reject in accordance with its authorities. The only exception is when the action would be certain to “kill or injure an Illinois listed animal species.” In that case, before the County may authorize the project, the applicant must demonstrate it has received an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) from the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to (520 ILCS 10/5.5 and 520 ILCS 10/11(b)). The statutes cited above require Mason County to consider whether the action it may authorize might adversely affect or modify protected natural resources. The Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act requires the Department to recommend measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for adverse effects to protected natural areas designated by the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa,Conservation Implications of a Morphometric
    Zootaxa 1589: 23–32 (2007) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2007 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Conservation implications of a morphometric comparison between the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) and Strecker’s Chorus Frog (P. s. streckeri) (Anura: Hylidae) from Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas JOY B. TRAUTH1,4, RONALD L. JOHNSON2, & STANLEY E. TRAUTH3 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 4Corresponding author Abstract Much uncertainty exists regarding the taxonomic status of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis Smith; ICF) relative to Strecker’s Chorus Frog (P. s. streckeri, Wright & Wright; SCF) of the southcentral United States (US). Molecular analyses have been inconsistent in providing taxonomic insight, and no formal morphological compar- isons have been previously performed. Each taxon possesses a wide range of background colors. We undertook mor- phometric analyses to help clarify their taxonomic relationship. Tibia length and mass were compared for live Arkansas (AR) specimens and snout-vent, head and tibia lengths were measured from preserved vouchered specimens. Tibia length and mass were significantly greater for living ICFs versus SCFs in AR. Among preserved specimens, tibia, snout- vent and head lengths were significantly greatly for AR ICFs relative to most intraspecific groups, and Texas (TX) SCFs were significantly smaller than most other groups. Principal components analysis was largely consistent with univariate analyses, although Missouri (MO) ICFs also partitioned distinctly from other sample groups. These data provide mor- phological evidence of geographic (clinal) variation within a species, but do not provide support for the taxonomic eleva- tion of the ICF to species status.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy
    State of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor Department of Natural Resources Joel Brunsvold, Director THE ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY VERSION 1.0 AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION & RESTORATION PROGRAM AND STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM ILLINOIS COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PLAN & STRATEGY Version 1.0 i. Partners in Plan/Strategy Development The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy was made possible with the help of these partners in conservation: ABATE of Illinois, Inc. Environmental Law & Policy Center Black Diamond Chapter Field Trial Clubs of Illinois American Bird Conservancy Fishing Buddies Association of Illinois Soil & Water Forest Preserve District of DuPage County Conservation Districts Forest Preserve District of Kane County Audubon Chicago Region Forest Preserve District of Will County Bird Conservation Network Friends of Johnson Park Boone County Conservation District Grand Prairie Friends Brookfield Zoo Henson Robinson Zoo Calhoun County Farm Bureau Illinois Association of Conservation Districts Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Illinois Association of REALTORS Central Illinois Musky Hunters Illinois Association of Regional Councils Champaign County Forest Preserve District Illinois Association of Resource Chicago Botanic Garden Conservation and Development Areas Chicago Wilderness Illinois Audubon Society Cook County Forest Preserve District Illinois Conservation Foundation Cosley Zoo Illinois Department of Agriculture D.J. Case & Associates Division
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List 53 Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States As Threatened Or Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST 53 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN THE UNITED STATES AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY JULY 11, 2012 1 Notice of Petition _____________________________________________________________________________ Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Nicole Alt, Chief Division of Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] AUTHORS Collette L. Adkins Giese Herpetofauna Staff Attorney Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 339 Circle Pines, MN 55014-0339 [email protected] 2 D. Noah Greenwald Endangered Species Program Director Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211-0374 [email protected] Tierra Curry Conservation Biologist P.O. Box 11374 Portland, OR 97211-0374 [email protected] PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity. The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non- profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center is supported by over 375,000 members and on-line activists throughout the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plan4 SGCN
    Section 2. Species of Greatest Conservation Need Identification and prioritization.......................................... 6 How the SGCN list was created Criteria for inclusion on the SGCN list Taxa Association Team contribution and review Revising the SGCN list Developing the species priority score protocol SGCN ranking by Species Priority Score (in taxa associations) Distribution ..................................................................... 28 Element occurrence Ecoregions where the species occurs Habitats where the species occurs Terrestrial Aquatic Expert Assessments .......................................................... 41 Problems faced Research needs Conservation actions called for Monitoring strategy Comments and citations Species Reports Amphibians ........................................................................................45 Bird ..................................................................................................113 Crayfish ............................................................................................339 Fish ...................................................................................................411 Insects ...............................................................................................561 Invertebrates - other ..........................................................................713 Mammals ..........................................................................................815 Mussels .............................................................................................870
    [Show full text]
  • Are Tadpoles of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis) Cannibalistic?
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science received 4/13/01 (2001), Volume 94, #3, pp. 171-178 accepted 8/15/01 Are Tadpoles of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) Cannibalistic? Malcolm L. McCallum P.O. Box 847 Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 [email protected] 1 (870) 972-3177 Stanley E. Trauth P.O. Box 899 Department of Biological Sciences Arkansas State University State University, AR 72467 [email protected] 1 (870) 972-3082 ABSTRACT Little is known about the ecology of Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis) tadpoles. We reared Illinois chorus frog tadpoles from eggs and observed evidence that this species’ tadpoles are cannibalistic. This behavior appears to be facultative based on increased mortality rates of tadpoles raised on low protein rations compared to tadpoles raised on high protein rations. Additionally, a large tadpole was observed carrying a small living tadpole in its mouth. Despite netting this individual and handling during photography, it refused to release the small individual. Photographic evidence that Illi- nois chorus frog larvae of identical ages fed identical rations in identical housing condi- tions show differential development reminiscent of large and small larval morphotypes combined with the tenacity with which the large larvae maintained its grip on the small one provide evidence that some of these larvae develop into cannibalistic mophotypes under appropriate conditions. Key Words: Illinois chorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis, tadpoles, cannibalism, Arkansas INTRODUCTION Evolutionarily strategies (ESS), conceptually derived from Game Theory, are those sets of rules of behavior that when adopted by a certain proportion of individuals in the 172 population cannot be replaced by any alternative strategy (Dawkins, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris Streckeri Illinoensis): Are Plots Or Ponds the Best Fine-Scaled Sampling Unit for Call Surveys?
    Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science received 1/26/15 (2015) Volume 108, pp. 53-58 accepted 12/16/15 Monitoring Occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris streckeri illinoensis): Are Plots or Ponds the Best Fine-scaled Sampling Unit for Call Surveys? Andrew C. Hulin1, Eric P. Golden2, and Robert D. Bluett1,3 1Illinois Department of Natural Resources, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois, 62702 2Sangamon County Soil & Water Conservation District, 2623 Sunrise Drive, Suite 1, Springfield, Illinois 62703 3Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT We conducted a pilot study to evaluate strategies for monitoring long-term trends in occupancy of the Illinois Chorus Frog (ICF; Pseu- dacris streckeri illinoensis) across its range in Illinois. Standard protocols for call surveys are not sensitive to extinctions of local pop- ulations of the ICF because its loud vocalizations create a large sampling area around each listening post. Therefore, we evaluated two spatially explicit, fine-grained alternatives – habitat polygons indicative of breeding sites and sections (a standard unit for land surveys; 2.59 km2). Our design relied on a GIS model to identify areas with suitable habitat. We tested the model by comparing its predictions to locations where ICFs were collected during an independent study. Most sections with records of ICFs had ≥1 habitat polygon (91%). Ability of the model to predict exact locations of collections was poor by comparison (54% occurred in a habitat polygon). We also evaluated effects of spatial scale on naïve rates of occupancy in central and southern Illinois during 2011‒2014. Call surveys (N = 171) conducted at 30 random sections with ≥1 habitat polygon (N = 119) yielded a greater naïve rate of occupancy for sections (63%) than individual breeding sites within those sections (40%) when years and regions were pooled.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of the Anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 – 2012
    January 2018 Open Access Publishing Volume 13, Monograph 7 A female Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) from Garibaldi Provincial Park, British Columbia, Canada. This large bufonid occurs throughout much of Western North America. The IUCN lists it as Near Threatened because it is probably in significant decline (> 30% over 10 years) due to disease.(Photographed by C. Kenneth Dodd). Bibliography of the Anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 – 2012. Monograph 7. C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. ISSN: 1931-7603 Indexed by: Zoological Record, Scopus, Current Contents / Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Journal Citation Reports, Science Citation Index Extended, EMBiology, Biology Browser, Wildlife Review Abstracts, Google Scholar, and is in the Directory of Open Access Journals. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE ANURANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. VERSION 2, UPDATED AND COVERING THE PERIOD 1709 – 2012. MONOGRAPH 7. C. KENNETH DODD, JR. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32611. Copyright © 2018. C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. All Rights Reserved. Please cite this monograph as follows: Dodd, C. Kenneth, Jr. 2018. Bibliography of the anurans of the United States and Canada. Version 2, Updated and Covering the Period 1709 - 2012. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(Monograph 7):1-328. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS i PREFACE ii ABSTRACT 1 COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHIC TRIVIA 1 LITERATURE CITED 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 FOOTNOTES 325 IDENTICAL TEXTS 325 CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 326 ADDITIONAL ANURAN-INCLUSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHIES 326 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY 328 i Preface to Version 2: An Expanded and Detailed Resource. MALCOLM L.
    [Show full text]